It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
It was a clear day with out a cloud in the sky. Same pattern for three days in a row.
As I clearly stated earlier, REGULAR flights out of PDX left a contrail which dissipated with in 30 seconds, while UNMARKED jest I've PERSONALLY seen, left a trail which hung in the sky for hours,
and upon descending on the city, both my wife and I began experiencing symptoms.
Among the hundreds and hundreds of tests that the army did, Stillwater, Oklahoma was targeted," said Cole, an expert on the Army's development of biological weapons. In some cities reports indicate Americans actually died because of the testing.
Government records show florescent particles of zinc cadmium sulfide were released in Stillwater in 1962.
"Cadmium itself is known to be one of the most highly toxic materials in small amounts that a human can be exposed to," Cole said
Originally posted by Long Lance
so, it seems as if they existed a few decades ago, why not now?
additional link: www.carnicom.com...
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Well since neither chemtrails, nor scalar weapons exist in reality, it is a silly theory.
Originally posted by dAlen
I watched one morning, in Atlanta, in the morning, when the sky was clear (actually a few mornings), and throughout the day I watched as each cloud that came out of the back of the plane formed EVERY cloud that was in the sky.
NOw that we know they make most of the clouds, what is its purpose.
If none...then imagine life without airplanes...no clouds, no rain?
Originally posted by Essan
A slight reduction in global warming is all. Most clouds are not formed from contrails.
[edit on 19-10-2006 by Essan]
Originally posted by dAlen
I watched one morning, in Atlanta, in the morning, when the sky was clear (actually a few mornings), and throughout the day I watched as each cloud that came out of the back of the plane formed EVERY cloud that was in the sky.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
I thought you said some of the aircraft left persistent contrails which spread out to cover the sky?
See, I was right. So it wasn't a cloudless blue sky.
So you're saying something was sprayed in the upper atmosphere. It stayed in place for 5 hours (despite strong winds at that altitude) and then suddenly settled directly down on the city. Presumably by this you mean the hazy cirrostratus cleared and a blue sky returned?
Oh iskander, tell us what doctors think there is some massive increase in respiratory ailments when plane fly over miles high?
Do you actually think it anything was "sprayed" 6 miles over a city, that it would come down anywhere near it?
I remember when "chemtrails" was first some internet conspiracy, it was about "low level" contrails that were a few hundred or thousand feet over cities. There was never any evidence to support any of those claims, no photo or anything. Just people with absolutely no depth perception.
Then they moved onto "persistent" trails, which again they have no evidence for,
Actually, a serious question for iskander:-
Did you think you were seeing chemtrails being sprayed striaght away? Or was it only after you and your wife felt ill that you began to suspect that's what you'd seen?
But the question is: did these chemicals form sheets of cloud that hung around in the sky for hours?
I bet they didn't.
How do you know? You don't, but hey, it's always fun to deny things, it sure is as hell a lot easier then proving something, isn't it?
Hey, how easy is it to say, "Nope, don't believe it", rather then actually USING your brain and being constructive.
To each their own.
I too question everything, but I also do the work, and make up my own mind.
This is the kind of constructive effort I'm talking about;
it depends on particle size (if there are any) and metereological conditions, of course, nano particles for example are known to drift off into nirvana unless their container is firmly sealed. these would not be visible, but condensation around them is another matter entirely.
Long Lance is on the right track.
dAlen described exactly what my wife and I saw for three days in a row in Portland.
I have a really good memory, and as a kid I always watched the sky, the clouds, and especially the jets and their contrails. Now take this into account, unless I went senile all the sudden, the contrails I saw in Portland seem completely unusual to me, and actually caught my attention to the point of irritation.
How many people here would be intrigued by a kids tricycle to the point of irritation for example?
Can anybody honestly say that they would think something like this; "Wow, what an unusually tricycle, I can not quite identify what it actually is, it looks like a tricycle, but it's not, what is it?"
I simply could not recall a single memory of contrails like I saw in Portland, and I went on a trip down memory lane all the way back to my childhood.
Nothing. What I saw in Portland I have not seem before, it's as simple as that. What it is, I don't know, but I do know that it's not normal or natural.
Seriously, remember your selves when you were kids, what are the possibilities of you not remembering a GIANT grid of squares in the sky?
You name it, tic-tac-toe, chess, checkers, and all other grid games imaginable would have been played by kids in the sky, and if such contrails existed even 20 years ago, such "sky squares" games would have already been a part of our daily existence, like Monopoly and Mr. Potato head, yet they are not.
It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that such persistent contrails are a new phenomena, but what they actually are is yet to be found.
Originally posted by Jaypeth
could the metalic substances found in chem trails
BTW, no one has explained how to tell if two planes are at the same altitude just by looking at them.
I do find the flaming of fellow members on this board revealing...if you dont agree with someone well your an idiot, and if you offer common sense explanations...well people just heap more and more implausible and incomprehensible stories on top of what they have already posted.
You know the old addage...simpleast is best...it is...when trying to explain or understand a new, unfamiliar concept...it's best to stick with fundamentals!!
But I can't prove that that was the case in this instance.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
BTW, no one has explained how to tell if two planes are at the same altitude just by looking at them.
Originally posted by iskander
I did.
Originally posted by iskander
Proportional ranging through the use of digital camera resolution as a base line. Pixel per pixel.
Originally posted by HowardRoark
Proportional ranging. Is that where you compare the apparent size of two objects to determine how far away they are?
So, according to that theory, the plane that appears to be smaller in this photo is farther away from the camera than the plane that appears to be bigger, is that right?
www.airliners.net...